I will make one final post on this issue before I too, will leave this topic. If anyone has any questions about it feel free to PM me, as many of you already have. There is no point in continuing to go in circles.

In other words, it's just irrational emoting on your part.

Exactly.

And you know this how? How did you come to the conclusion that there is no good or evil?

There is no way to define either without the other. Good cannot stand without evil, and evil cannot stand without good. Neither exist in reality, only in imagination.

You want to be a law unto yourself---that's playing God.

I do not need to be a god to make a law for myself.

Again, define free will. I hold that everything is predestined and yet at the same time, we do make responsible free choices.

If God predestined everything, how can we be responsible? Is the fictional Voldemort responsible for killing Harry's parents, when it is JK Rowling who caused it to happen?

you are being irrational. You are angry at a God who may or may not be there based on a standard that only applies to you which you hold based on a set of "facts" that you still haven't told us why you believe.

My standard does not apply only to me, but everything in existence. I believe because of evidence I have already shown throughout the last 5 or 6 pages.

God didn't have to create us at all. He didn't have to come and die, to suffer as no human has suffered before or since. He didn't have to enter our story at all. Yet He did.

By creating us, he entered our story. You're right, he didn't HAVE to create us, but he did - that's why he's selfish.

Really, you think that God owes you something. Well let me tell you that He doesn't. He has given you much and here you go throwing it selfishly away.

I don't think God owes me anything, I think he left us to whatever end. He hasn't given us anything but what exists in this universe.

"Better to reign in Hell than in Heaven serve," am I right?

Yes.

You can be forgiven: you can be free of doubt and sin

I'm already free of both. And I didn't need anyone to do it for me.

You have demonstrated that mercy is as foreign to you as love, but it is still offered.

We will find out once we die, I suppose.

A Christian will undoubtedly respond that we do have freedom, the one choice that God gives us: Eternal servitude in Heaven, or eternal Suffering in Hell. You decide for yourself which would be the greater punishment; spending forever with the one who created this horrible existence, or spending it with the one who had the courage to stand up against him, and was sentenced to damnation for it.

As you can see, it is impossible that God – if he exists – to be both personal and loving. If he is personal, he is like a young child who grows an ant farm so that he can use a magnifying glass on them. If he were truly loving, he would never have created us and so saved us from this fate of suffering, injustice, pain and torment. A common answer to this is that if God did not love us, he would not have sent his “son” Jesus to die on the cross and take the place of our sins, saving those who believe in him from sin. What is my explanation for this? Jesus was a martyr, he may have believed himself to be the son of God, maybe not, maybe he was just crazy, either way he was a man who died for what he believed in just like thousands of other martyrs. I have been told that if he was a liar or crazy, he would not have died for what he believed. If martyrdom is substantial proof that a belief is true, then that would mean that the Kamikaze pilots of World War II proved that their leader was divine. Also, it is physically impossible for a human that has been dead for more than 5 minutes to survive, at least without irreversible and severe brain damage, and the Bible claims that Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days. Christians might respond to this by saying that it was a miracle from God, but using one unrealistic idea to prove another implausible idea is neither logical nor valid in any argument.

If God exists, he cannot be personal and loving. Even if he cares about us, which I doubt, it is only in the sense that a boy ignites ants with a magnifying glass. However, he takes it one step further by raising an ant farm merely to produce the ants to ignite. I for one would not even want to spend eternity with somebody like this. We can waste our lives trying to please a God who – if he exists – does not even care about us, or we can enjoy life while we’re living it, make the most of it, and spend the time doing as we see best. It is the only way to live.

Ask yourself which worldview -- Christianity or supposed "nihilism" -- will be the most helpful if you want to make any of the below choices:

1) Should I maintain posted speed limits?

2) Should I bother about the whole "going to church" thing?

3) Should I sleep with my girlfriend (if she'll let me)?

The answer to all of these is, it doesn't really matter.

If I may, let me just say something here.
A few months ago, a woman on my road chose not to obey a stop sign. According to you, Andrew, her choice didn't really matter; and this very same choice led to a car wreck, her death and the orphaning of her young daughter.
My question is---does the woman's choice to disregard the stop sign still not matter? Do the consequences of that choice not matter?

Yes, pain and suffering are very real in this world. Yes, it can be very ugly out there, but I don’t understand how someone can look at all that and say it doesn’t matter. How can pain or grief or suffering not matter? It would take a very cold, loveless person to look into the eyes of that little girl, still waiting for her mother, and say “It doesn’t matter”. I’m not saying you are cold and loveless, Andrew, all I’m saying is would you want to be friends with the person who could do that?

To have something to live for is a very important need all humans have. This is, in part, why I am a Christian. Loving God and following His commands to love my neighbors is a huge reason to live. . .and those reasons will not die when I die. My God has promised eternal life to all who love Him; and what’s more, eternal life filled with the reasons I live and love this life. To me, this sounds very fun.

Note again that I didn't say I would exit permanently, or refuse to engage in discussion with you at all, or anything like that. I'm still open for honest questions about what Christians truly believe, for example, while moving forward and -- as has already begun to happen -- talking with others.

(I'll make the very rare recommendation that others do the same. Keeping on like this does not help any of us to learn, or the discussion to develop.)

Instead you'll recall I pointed out that, as you apparently agree, the conversation is going in circles, and suggested you instead begin to learn about the faith you claim to reject forever. You proved that again here:

What I was taught about Christianity is that we must accept Christ as our savior, and he takes the punishment of sin and let's us go to heaven. Then one year at church camp the speaker revealed something to me: that wasn't enough to get to heaven. "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father in heaven." We must also live for Christ, keep his commandments, etcetera.

Have you even thought of asking any of the Christians here whether that speaker was actually speaking the Biblically based truth? Or do you just accept that guy's word as the debate-ender, acknowledging his right to frame your views of Christianity entirely, a dictator over your mind?

Come on. You're smarter than that.

If this counts at all: a true Christian won't want to deny Christ. In the Christian worldview, this is true of other good works God expects from his people. The "whoever denies me before men, I also will deny" text, read in its context (Matthew 10), and read in conjunction with the rest of Scripture, shows clearly what Jesus meant, and means about His people.

Either your camp speaker said this wrong, or you heard it wrong. But with this kind of blind acceptance of anyone's misreading of Scripture, and a clear refusal to check up on him, few people will have any respect for you.

But one can have love for you without respect. That's what I've seen from everyone here. Do keep that in mind, and be assured either a Christian or someone borrowing the Christian ethic of compassion and caring is standing by to help if you're in trouble. I daresay I'd prefer a Christian paramedic on the scene of an accident like the one Avra described above, rather than a paramedic living out what you claim are you views. Notice I said "claimed" -- you not could actually make moral decisions consistently according to your professed belief. And it's to God's credit, and Christian worldview traces in you, that you wouldn't.

We will find out [if God has offered people mercy] once we die, I suppose.

Again, if God only waited until you die to tell you this, He's an idiot and doesn't care, and you have vindication. Have a hard think about what, exactly, it is you claim to expect God to do to let you know in advance.

That's the world your supposedly loving god created.

As if you are unaware of Genesis 3 and the account of the Fall? Or the fact that a good God could bring even greater good from a corrupt world?

Let's say [J.K. Rowling] is God and Voldemort is the devil - God made someone just so they could drag others to eternal suffering with them? If that's not love I don't know what is.

This only works if we assume it is unfair for the Author of life, the universe and everything to receive due glory for whatever happens in it.

I do not need to be a god to make a law for myself.

In effect, yes you do: a god in your own mind. Again, you in supposing yourself to have this level of "wisdom" seem to think you should have the right to be "nihilistic," but if there is a God, He would not have that right.

But that is irrelevant. With the statement I quoted above, you are making a sweeping generalization about the Christian God and the Christian worldview, and in that generalization completely ignoring the very thing that the Christian worldview is centered on: the selfless death of Christ, God dying on behalf of mankind, giving up every right He has on behalf of His creation.

(Equustel, I hope you stick around, for I wish I had said that.)

To carry on the novel metaphor, it's similar to how the Harry Potter series' high stakes "glorifies" the main characters, and even more so the author for her brilliance in creating a world where all the details work out in the end. The analogy breaks down only when we recall that Rowling, of course, did not create the world. God did. Thus He deserves all the glory, and furthermore, He is the greatest good and source of joy that ever a person could have. In His selfless act of dying for His people, God was glorifying Himself. He has that right. He made the world. And it is fitting to "grant" Him that right. And His "self-interest" is to our benefit.

Again, I hope you will consider any of the books I have suggested, and not rely on half-truths and lies others have told you about Christianity.

Dr Elwin, you pick and choose from what I say the easiest things to answer and ignore the difficult points - the ones that undermine your biblical God. Not that this is necessarily wrong, just interesting.

(I love it when others pick up on my habit of boldfacing usernames!)

Even if that were true, that would simply mean we are dead-even, friend. For days you have been highly selective in responding to my questions, such as the whole borrowing-from-the-Christian-worldview-whenever-convenient thing, the Problem of Good, the Christian truths of resurrection and respect-for-life-yet-no-fear-of-death, your wrong readings of Scripture, the broader definitions of worshiping God, etc.

But all that assumes you're right that I've ducked your questions. Not true. Rather, you simply don't like the Bible's answers, and do not agree with them; we have different worldviews. As The Black Glove said, "it's just irrational emoting on your part." And indeed, if you are truly as fatalistic and devil-may-care as you claim, it shouldn't bother you if I not only ducked your questions, but started typing the Budapest phone directory in response, or sent you a computer virus, or abused my mod "powers" to ban you forever from the forum, or anything like that. ...

I know, I know. "It doesn't matter," etc. ... Easy for you to say, when you're totally safe on the forum, protected even if I were to go rogue! And the same is true in the real world. One can hardly blame the Hobbits for going about their idealistic existence when all along their land was being guarded by benevolent Rangers from the West, but what if a Hobbit, made aware of this fact, were to despise those Rangers?

Hmm. One related point: a "nihilistic" story, with characters behaving in the ways you've described, would be quite boring and dull, wouldn't it?

More on that in a moment.

And that's like saying I'm going to like someone who's a jerk all the time - it doesn't mean he's "wrong," it means I don't like the way he acts for personal reasons.

These are all personal reasons -- the same ones that fail to prove "there is no right and wrong" or any of the other just-because statements.

The answer to all of these is, it doesn't really matter.

It's only your opinion that it doesn't matter.

Even if true, it also shouldn't matter that the discussion ends, or that I avoid further participation -- or have the proverbial "last word."

Anyway, this is more self-deception. You are not an android. You have a body, desires, longings, emotions, and worst of all, the ability to be attracted to something or someone. Typing on a message board won't fake out anyone. The emperor has no clothes. So why not get dressed in real garments, come out and play with the rest of us?

One recalls the words of a brave Marshwiggle's expression of "blind faith," although I'm convinced that while saying this he knew again that trees, water, the sun, Narnia and Aslan were real and that all of them had meaning and purpose. But he told her off wonderfully, even if in a worst-case scenario she was right.

What do you think, Puddleglum?

"All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend all our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

Andrew, your definition of love happens to be pretty close to mine. (a person's needs are good, which another person should help them with).

But if nothing we do matters, why the heck do you want to love other people?

Lucy P, it is an irrational choice. I love being around people, that's just who I am.

Elwin, if you admittedly would rather live in a play-world than the real one just because it's more exciting, nothing I can say can refute that, or make it sound more ridiculous than it is.

I've realized why you can't understand what I'm saying: You are working under this Oprah-ish assumption that I am hiding some moral code from you that runs my life, unable to understand that I really do think differently than you. You seem to think that, underneath a persona, I really do think that any of these issues we've discussed is wrong. Well, I don't, but if you're unwilling to accept that there is no point in saying anything to you about the matter any longer.

It's so like you TBG to only quote something out of context . I don't have one PARTICULAR countermodel, because I have MANY. In fact, I don't see them as "counter"-models, but models period, none of them Absolute, because they are only REPRESENTATIONS. I include the Christian model, and the Greek model in my toolbox of models, because that's what they are, TOOLS for framing the context in which to view REALITY. Each with their pros and cons.

But you know all that already, you're just resorting to disingenuous tactics again .

And the quotes of The Greek First Principles of "Formal Logic", aka Reason, aka Rhetoric, are straight out of any standard textbook on Greek Philosophy. You didn't question that the first go-round? Why start now?

And of course they are "true", but only in the sense that they are "true" WITHIN their OWN set, with their OWN set of rules. In this way, they DO resemble Mathematics. One can simply apply another set of rules to the same question, as in Algebra, wherein one can come up with more than one answer, both (or more) correct.

They are not however; "True in all circumstances", which is the Mathematical definition of Tautology (and also a dubious assumption that is actually SET-bound). And you yourself have just demonstrated that the "Law" of non-contradiction, is not circular reasoning, i.e. not rhetorically tautological.

As to the Principle of Causality, far be it for me to waste everyone's time explaining how Quantum Physics turns this upside down, it would take far more time and space than I am willing to give. And it is distraction from the main point. But anyone can Google to find out what Quantum Physics says about Causality. And you certainly have no grounds on which to challenge it.

NO TBG, it is YOU who want to escape Reason and Empiricism, by equating it with Faith. You see it as having some sort of upper-hand because it is better at explaining physical phenomena than the Bible. You are Envious of its power, and jealous that it has supplanted Biblical "Truth" in such matters. So you want to tear it down and say that it is no better than Faith. But in doing so you undermine the very basis for Faith.

But you don't have to do that, because Empiricism can say NOTHING about matters of Faith. Atheists that claim it does are just whistlin' Dixie, blowin' a lotta hot air. Faith and Empiricism are two different realms that happen to exist side by side in the same Universe.

The Doubting Thomas story makes it clear "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed", that is the very definition of Faith. And no Atheist has any Empirical grounds to challenge that.

Peace and Long Life

GB

I don't have one PARTICULAR countermodel, because I have MANY.

So your counter-model is a model of many models---it's still a model, no matter how you square it.

They are not however; "True in all circumstances", which is the Mathematical definition of Tautology

I would define tautology as being, "such that it could not be false."

I include the Christian model, and the Greek model in my toolbox of models, because that's what they are, TOOLS for framing the context in which to view REALITY. Each with their pros and cons.

You cannot treat the Christian model this way because it is true if and only if Christian theism is actually the case---if God, the three in one, is actually there in fact, if Christ rose from the dead.

Do you want to believe in the living Christ? We may believe in him only if we believe in his corporeal resurrection. This is the content of the New Testament. We are always free to reject it, but not to modify it, nor to pretend that the New Testament tells something else. We may accept or refuse the message, but we may not change it.

Unlike Greek philosophy, Judaism, Buddhism, even Islam, Christianity is an absolute. It demands either full allegiance or rejection because it rests upon the truth or falsehood of a single fact: that Christ rose from the dead. Either He did or He didn't.

The trouble is that the model is a model of reality, nothing less. The story of the blind men and the elephant is great, except that it only makes sense if told by a person who sees that it is an elephant. It only makes sense if you aren't one of the blind men.

NO TBG, it is YOU who want to escape Reason and Empiricism, by equating it with Faith.

Reason is logic/common sense. It involves beliefs in absolutes such as the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality---without these, science cannot function.

As to the Principle of Causality, far be it for me to waste everyone's time explaining how Quantum Physics turns this upside down

No it does not---it simply shows the limits of physics. Why can't the action of the atom have a metaphysical cause? What if God is the one causing these seemingly random events.

Faith and Empiricism

Empirical knowledge is a subset of faith, as I have shown time and again (re: the definition).

"blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed", that is the very definition of Faith.

If that's your definition of faith, then all historical information is known on faith. I didn't see Washington cross the Delaware, yet I believe that he did.

So you want to tear it down and say that it is no better than Faith.

Wrong, I contend that it is faith. Faith in my faculties is still faith. Reasonable? Yes, but still faith. All knowledge includes belief and all belief is faith. I'm not tearing down empirical knowledge, just empiricism, the privileging of empirical knowledge.

TBG

TBG, Your arguments all rest on bed of sand, you define and redefine as it suits you when they have been shown to be merit-less. I'm tired of chasing your Unicorns, Red Herrings, and Straw Men for the time being.

In the meantime, enjoy your Self-Satisfaction , and your Pretzel Logic .

GB

TBG, Your arguments all rest on bed of sand, you define and redefine as it suits you when they have been shown to be merit-less.

I have been quite precise. It is you who use words for connotation over content. It may be that my education in an analytic tradition confuses some, but given my definitions (which are ordinary language definitions), the conclusion is at least plausible.

As for "pretzel logic" you have failed to show a) how I have violated the laws of logic b) that logic has a basis in reality, because if it doesn't, then twists don't matter.

TBG

If you say so TBG, it must be true.

GB

I asked this question a few pages back, but it was convienantly ignored. So anyways, ignoring all prior debate, if anyone wants to answer it that'd be great:

Let’s take a little trip back to the beginning of time. As humans, we haven’t been to heaven and don’t know what it’s like but the Bible tells us how great it will be, yet not only Lucifer, the brightest of angels, but also a third of the angels, who have seen and been a part of God’s glory firsthand, obviously didn’t think it was that great, and what Lucifer offered was better, for they followed him straight out of heaven. Also, if God was so powerful why did Lucifer think he could replace him?

...if you admittedly would rather live in a play-world than the real one just because it's more exciting, nothing I can say can refute that, or make it sound more ridiculous than it is.

Fine with us; we are ridiculous people, after all.

What can I say? Or rather, what did you expect when you made that first post introducing your "radical" beliefs? Did you expect you'd somehow make us all "see the light" and convert to your belief system? We're way too whacked-in-the-head by worldly standards for that to work. Besides, it's not like several other people haven't gone before you trying to explain their various god-less worldviews to us...

Were you just looking for some discussion of worldviews? I hope you got what you were looking for, but it doesn't seem like you're satisfied with what we gave you...

...well, what can I say? No one ever said you had to be a citizen of the State of Mass Confusion like a lot of us are. Nor do you have to understand our ways. I think even the most rationally-thinking person should encounter some things (or people) that are just far beyond all rational reasoning. It's healthier that way. (Hint: If theological debate is too frustrating to satisfy your needs in this area, try learning a foreign language; plenty of irrational things, plus it's fun and useful!)

But hey, beyond our insanity, we Christians are human. We have our worries, our fears, our struggles, our moments when we don't have answers and are lost because of it. And while some members of our belief system represent us poorly (and I mean really poorly), most of us are kind, loving folks who see the non-Christians among us as humans, too. Sure, we try to persuade them to believe what we believe. Is there any human being who, deep down in their hearts, would not want the people they love to share in their beliefs? Has that not, in some way, been your wish as well? Sure, some people say it doesn't matter what we believe, but it's a part of human nature that, ultimately, we like it when someone agrees with us.

Yeah, it doesn't always work out, and we love others regardless of whether they share our beliefs. We may have to agree to disagree here, but do remember we are thinking of you and only wish the best for you, and if there is any "Christian" you know who doesn't, let us know and we'll see what we can do to get one of us dispatched to where you live to give said "Christian" a good (figurative) knock in the head.

(Granted, we probably can't do much, but hey...)

There's not too much else to say. So... next topic then!

Wow ... it's getting kinda hot in here! Care to tone it down a bit, guys? Friendly debate, remember? Emphasis on friendly.

I probably won't stick around, but I did want to make one or two points regarding this quote of yours, GB. (And I'm not picking on you here. It was the one thing that snagged my attention.) These are less like points of contentions and more like reactions/observations.

The Doubting Thomas story makes it clear "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed", that is the very definition of Faith. And no Atheist has any Empirical grounds to challenge that.

1. This makes it sound like we should hide out where the Atheists or Empiricists can't get us. I prefer a bolder faith, personally.

2. Neither Christ nor the Apostle John labels "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" as "the very definition of faith." You made that equation. Believing beyond what we can see is definitely part of biblical faith, but it's much broader than that. This is merely your own view of what faith is.

3. None of us have "seen." None of us were in the Holy Land during the time of Jesus. None of us saw him rise from the grave. Any professing Christian exercises faith, merely by holding the resurrection to be true. This includes TBG.

4. ... but that doesn't mean that faith should be the be-all and end-all of our lives as thinking believers. Provided that the Christian model is true and that God created us - body, mind, and soul - wouldn't he want us to exercise all our faculties in pursuit of him, including the mind?

I prefer a Thinking Faith, rather than a Blind Faith.

Of course, if you see faith and logic as diametrically opposed, then this is probably all mindless blabber to you.

*steps out*

I quite agree with your point Lys . It's TBG's "points" I take issue with .

My point in that quote is in fact another way of saying what you just said. Indeed I do not think people of Faith should "hide out." I just take issue when some of them try to equate Knowledge that is falsifiable, with Knowledge that is unfalsifiable.

Just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's necessarily Untrue. Just that it cannot be proven or disproven. And I don't take issue with having Confidence in something that can't be Empirically demonstrated. Nor do I take issue with Reasoned Faith; tis indeed more refreshing than Blind Faith.

I've tried every way since Sunday, to make that point, but to no avail. And there is no point in simply repeating my arguments ad infinitum as TBG would like to do. Thus there is no point to continue for now, I have filled my quota of pointless argument for the year, and will no doubt have another go round with TBG next year when we are both refreshed and itching for another bout .

As always, TBG remains a Worthy Opponent, even though he's Wrong . And I enjoy our debates.

GB

Ah, leave it to me to pour all my efforts into a post that is making a point tangential to the conversation at hand. Gah.